What was going on in Peter Rippon’s mind? By that point he must have been aware of the potential embarrassment for the BBC if Newsnight accused the late Savile of being a paedophile just as the BBC entertainment launched a hagiographic “Savile Christmas” of tributes. Was it anticipatory compliance where Rippon intuited what he thought his bosses would want? One insider says they think Rippon picked up on a passing comment by head of News, Helen Boaden, saw it as straw in the wind and decided to kill the investigation. We may never know the answer to this question. The Newsnight editor did not help himself with his blog which inaccurately recorded that the story was about the police investigation into Savile, not the actual Savile allegations. He looked like a man distancing himself from his own decision. One of the lessons to come out of this sorry affair is that the considered nature of investigative journalism and off the cuff casualness of social media are poor bedfellows.

Full piece on openDemocracy’s ourBeeb site…

Background

Purvis’ first post on the topic [14 Nov] detailed a Sunday Times’ story by Miles Goslett* (£), which didn’t appear to have been followed up elsewhere by the media. It described how lawyers acting for Mark Thompson and Helen Boaden, director of BBC News, had responded to questions posed by the Sunday Times in August – they denied allegations about the handling of the Newsnight item and threatened legal action if they were printed. Purvis emphasised the significance of this story (the timings) in his post. Thompson’s reply to Purvis’ post was published here. Purvis has since summarised the resulting coverage here and here.

The Sunday Times’ latest story by Goslett, ‘Former DG feels heat over lawyers’ letter’ (£), reports:

Thompson … has told the Pollard inquiry he was not emailed a copy of the [legal] letter and does not recall being shown it.

Curiously, this fascinating story has received little interest beyond Purvis’ blog, the pages of the Sunday Times and US-based publications…

Purvis has remarked on this too and suggests that the fact that the Times’ story was behind a paywall might be significant.

However, that wouldn’t explain the continued lack of interest, now Purvis and US publications have made the details open-access…

It’s a “potentially explosive” story says the Telegraph’s Tom Chivers, but in his view, the New York Times’ could jazz up its headline a little: “‘Letter Raises Questions’? Seriously? That’s how you want to lead this? That’s your best shot?”

Further reading

• New York Magazine: ‘Mark Thompson Had No Idea What Was in That Letter From Mark Thompson’
• Poynter: ‘New CEO Mark Thompson ends first week with memo to New York Times staff’
• New York Times: Mark Thompson
• The Times: ‘‘Mark Thompson’s own paper raises doubts’ (£)

*Goslett was the journalist who first (unsuccessfully) tried to interest Fleet Street in the  Newsnight/Savile story, before placing it in the Oldie in February 2012. The newspapers’ reluctance to run it is a topic for another blog post…

But what about opening up justice online? The new issue of the Internet Newsletter for Lawyers features my article summing up the ‘Open Justice in the Digital Era’ project at the Centre for Law, Justice and Journalism, and the forthcoming ‘Justice Wide Open’ working papers. Appropriately, as of this month, access to the journal is free online [print subscription details here].

I argue that our project raises important questions to be teased out and properly considered by legal authorities and government, in consultation with the public, researchers and the media. In that sense, our project is a call for debate as well as action.

Read the article in full here.

It’s a week of non-stop livestreamed media law and ethics entertainment, what with numerous Parliamentary committees and Leveson to follow online. If you can’t get enough of media regulation, there’s another event coming up at City Law School on 23 November: ‘Is the ‘fit and proper person’ test in broadcasting inadequate?’ with Steven Barnett, Perry Keller, Ashley Roughton and Ian Walden. Book your tickets here.

The Court of Justice of the European Union has released Advocate General Kokott’s opinion on Murphy v Media Protection Services and FA Premier League v QC Leisure [PDF].

To mark it, the City University London Legal Research blog has published a series of posts discussing the implications of the case (more commonly known in media reports as the pub landlady’s fight against Sky). The European Court of Justice’s judgment is expected later this year.

See the City Legal Research blog’s most recent posts here: